dyb at cs.indiana.edu writes:
>> * Library procedures can't ever be sure their continuation
>> will accept zero values. That assumption could be added
>> to their contract, but that would be an incompatible
>> change to the contracts of procedures that currently
>> return a single unspecified result.
>> This is the crux of the matter. I would be inclined to make set!, write,
> etc., return zero values if it weren't for the huge backward compatibility
> problem it would cause.
I guess that's the main thing I wanted to find out in a poll: Almost
none (make that: no code I'm aware of) of the code I deal with would
be affected by this change.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla